The Stand Your Ground Update [MEGA]

Replies

  • Kyno wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    1. It's not a bug, it's a change that they have decided to revert
    2. They don't care that our KAM runs are impacted
    3. We have no way of knowing if KAM will be required for the next GL or not

    2. They do care, and there was no change in the win rate last round. They will monitor the data this go also.

    Surprisingly our guild actually increased our win count last round.

    Not everyone had the update installed when they did the KAM mission last time.
    I reject your reality and substitute my own.
  • Just make kam double drop for the next few months
  • Kyno
    31476 posts Moderator
    Nauros wrote: »
    there was no change in the win rate last round.

    While that's good to know, without knowing how many people completed the mission before downloading the change we can't be sure how good that data is.
    They will monitor the data this go also.

    Good. I don't know how many people might fail b/c of the bug, and maybe the number will be very small, but I'm glad they're going to be paying attention.
    Surprisingly our guild actually increased our win count last round.

    Not that surprising. Except at the very top end guilds should be getting better prepared on average each month. Some won't, and even when you're better prepared RNG can hand you a bad run, but better toons is a positive, the change to SYG was a negative, and RNG over a small sample size (35 to 50 attempts) can easily be larger than the net effect of improved toons minus new SYG mechanic.

    I'd be interested in comparing the rate of increase in wins over the months before to end of last month + this month. If it's not increasing at the same rate, then that could easily be the effect of the SYG change even if successes don't actually go down.

    Note that I'm not complaining, I'm just noting that a single guild getting a few more shards last month isn't high quality evidence for the lack of an effect (or for quantifying the specific effect size).

    This. Arguing that there was no change in win rate and thus all is fine is simply playing us for fools. There should be more wins each month, due to player development. The win rate staying the same means there definitely is some adverse effect.

    I'm sure there is a variance each month (some +/_) that needs to be accounted for, that mission is difficult and can vary, so saying it should always increase is not accurate.
  • Kyno
    31476 posts Moderator
    there was no change in the win rate last round.

    While that's good to know, without knowing how many people completed the mission before downloading the change we can't be sure how good that data is.
    They will monitor the data this go also.

    Good. I don't know how many people might fail b/c of the bug, and maybe the number will be very small, but I'm glad they're going to be paying attention.
    Surprisingly our guild actually increased our win count last round.

    Not that surprising. Except at the very top end guilds should be getting better prepared on average each month. Some won't, and even when you're better prepared RNG can hand you a bad run, but better toons is a positive, the change to SYG was a negative, and RNG over a small sample size (35 to 50 attempts) can easily be larger than the net effect of improved toons minus new SYG mechanic.

    I'd be interested in comparing the rate of increase in wins over the months before to end of last month + this month. If it's not increasing at the same rate, then that could easily be the effect of the SYG change even if successes don't actually go down.

    Note that I'm not complaining, I'm just noting that a single guild getting a few more shards last month isn't high quality evidence for the lack of an effect (or for quantifying the specific effect size).

    I'm sure they look at the data in many ways, and I dont believe that any variance, within the normal could be attributed to any single thing. This mission is not likely to have a single rate of increase, with the difficulty and RNG nature.
  • Nauros
    4665 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    there was no change in the win rate last round.

    While that's good to know, without knowing how many people completed the mission before downloading the change we can't be sure how good that data is.
    They will monitor the data this go also.

    Good. I don't know how many people might fail b/c of the bug, and maybe the number will be very small, but I'm glad they're going to be paying attention.
    Surprisingly our guild actually increased our win count last round.

    Not that surprising. Except at the very top end guilds should be getting better prepared on average each month. Some won't, and even when you're better prepared RNG can hand you a bad run, but better toons is a positive, the change to SYG was a negative, and RNG over a small sample size (35 to 50 attempts) can easily be larger than the net effect of improved toons minus new SYG mechanic.

    I'd be interested in comparing the rate of increase in wins over the months before to end of last month + this month. If it's not increasing at the same rate, then that could easily be the effect of the SYG change even if successes don't actually go down.

    Note that I'm not complaining, I'm just noting that a single guild getting a few more shards last month isn't high quality evidence for the lack of an effect (or for quantifying the specific effect size).

    This. Arguing that there was no change in win rate and thus all is fine is simply playing us for fools. There should be more wins each month, due to player development. The win rate staying the same means there definitely is some adverse effect.

    I'm sure there is a variance each month (some +/_) that needs to be accounted for, that mission is difficult and can vary, so saying it should always increase is not accurate.

    Not sure if it actually is the case here, only CG has the numbers and the requirements to even try are pretty tough, but if the sample is big enough, that variation should cancel out. Just like it does for drop rates...
  • Kyno
    31476 posts Moderator
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    there was no change in the win rate last round.

    While that's good to know, without knowing how many people completed the mission before downloading the change we can't be sure how good that data is.
    They will monitor the data this go also.

    Good. I don't know how many people might fail b/c of the bug, and maybe the number will be very small, but I'm glad they're going to be paying attention.
    Surprisingly our guild actually increased our win count last round.

    Not that surprising. Except at the very top end guilds should be getting better prepared on average each month. Some won't, and even when you're better prepared RNG can hand you a bad run, but better toons is a positive, the change to SYG was a negative, and RNG over a small sample size (35 to 50 attempts) can easily be larger than the net effect of improved toons minus new SYG mechanic.

    I'd be interested in comparing the rate of increase in wins over the months before to end of last month + this month. If it's not increasing at the same rate, then that could easily be the effect of the SYG change even if successes don't actually go down.

    Note that I'm not complaining, I'm just noting that a single guild getting a few more shards last month isn't high quality evidence for the lack of an effect (or for quantifying the specific effect size).

    This. Arguing that there was no change in win rate and thus all is fine is simply playing us for fools. There should be more wins each month, due to player development. The win rate staying the same means there definitely is some adverse effect.

    I'm sure there is a variance each month (some +/_) that needs to be accounted for, that mission is difficult and can vary, so saying it should always increase is not accurate.

    Not sure if it actually is the case here, only CG has the numbers and the requirements to even try are pretty tough, but if the sample is big enough, that variation should cancel out. Just like it does for drop rates...

    But as we have seen and is always the case in mathematics of this nature, even at large sample size you never reach "perfection". There will always be an acceptable margin of "error".

    You can collect a huge sample size of flipping a coin and are not going to actually get 50%. It never truly cancels out. This is the same for drop rates, we dont actually have data saying its 33%, we have massive data tables that get really close and we make the logical next step.
  • Nauros
    4665 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    there was no change in the win rate last round.

    While that's good to know, without knowing how many people completed the mission before downloading the change we can't be sure how good that data is.
    They will monitor the data this go also.

    Good. I don't know how many people might fail b/c of the bug, and maybe the number will be very small, but I'm glad they're going to be paying attention.
    Surprisingly our guild actually increased our win count last round.

    Not that surprising. Except at the very top end guilds should be getting better prepared on average each month. Some won't, and even when you're better prepared RNG can hand you a bad run, but better toons is a positive, the change to SYG was a negative, and RNG over a small sample size (35 to 50 attempts) can easily be larger than the net effect of improved toons minus new SYG mechanic.

    I'd be interested in comparing the rate of increase in wins over the months before to end of last month + this month. If it's not increasing at the same rate, then that could easily be the effect of the SYG change even if successes don't actually go down.

    Note that I'm not complaining, I'm just noting that a single guild getting a few more shards last month isn't high quality evidence for the lack of an effect (or for quantifying the specific effect size).

    This. Arguing that there was no change in win rate and thus all is fine is simply playing us for fools. There should be more wins each month, due to player development. The win rate staying the same means there definitely is some adverse effect.

    I'm sure there is a variance each month (some +/_) that needs to be accounted for, that mission is difficult and can vary, so saying it should always increase is not accurate.

    Not sure if it actually is the case here, only CG has the numbers and the requirements to even try are pretty tough, but if the sample is big enough, that variation should cancel out. Just like it does for drop rates...

    But as we have seen and is always the case in mathematics of this nature, even at large sample size you never reach "perfection". There will always be an acceptable margin of "error".

    You can collect a huge sample size of flipping a coin and are not going to actually get 50%. It never truly cancels out. This is the same for drop rates, we dont actually have data saying its 33%, we have massive data tables that get really close and we make the logical next step.

    Sure. And as far as KAM mission completion is concerned, there should be a clear upwards trend. If thousands of players have him unlocked, then the attempts should easily be in tens of thousands, so the variation shouldn't matter much. If nothing else, the numbers staying the same is a cause for concern, not for dismissing it.
  • Kyno
    31476 posts Moderator
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nauros wrote: »
    there was no change in the win rate last round.

    While that's good to know, without knowing how many people completed the mission before downloading the change we can't be sure how good that data is.
    They will monitor the data this go also.

    Good. I don't know how many people might fail b/c of the bug, and maybe the number will be very small, but I'm glad they're going to be paying attention.
    Surprisingly our guild actually increased our win count last round.

    Not that surprising. Except at the very top end guilds should be getting better prepared on average each month. Some won't, and even when you're better prepared RNG can hand you a bad run, but better toons is a positive, the change to SYG was a negative, and RNG over a small sample size (35 to 50 attempts) can easily be larger than the net effect of improved toons minus new SYG mechanic.

    I'd be interested in comparing the rate of increase in wins over the months before to end of last month + this month. If it's not increasing at the same rate, then that could easily be the effect of the SYG change even if successes don't actually go down.

    Note that I'm not complaining, I'm just noting that a single guild getting a few more shards last month isn't high quality evidence for the lack of an effect (or for quantifying the specific effect size).

    This. Arguing that there was no change in win rate and thus all is fine is simply playing us for fools. There should be more wins each month, due to player development. The win rate staying the same means there definitely is some adverse effect.

    I'm sure there is a variance each month (some +/_) that needs to be accounted for, that mission is difficult and can vary, so saying it should always increase is not accurate.

    Not sure if it actually is the case here, only CG has the numbers and the requirements to even try are pretty tough, but if the sample is big enough, that variation should cancel out. Just like it does for drop rates...

    But as we have seen and is always the case in mathematics of this nature, even at large sample size you never reach "perfection". There will always be an acceptable margin of "error".

    You can collect a huge sample size of flipping a coin and are not going to actually get 50%. It never truly cancels out. This is the same for drop rates, we dont actually have data saying its 33%, we have massive data tables that get really close and we make the logical next step.

    Sure. And as far as KAM mission completion is concerned, there should be a clear upwards trend. If thousands of players have him unlocked, then the attempts should easily be in tens of thousands, so the variation shouldn't matter much. If nothing else, the numbers staying the same is a cause for concern, not for dismissing it.

    If the rate of change varies, and that rate is within the norm, why should be cause for concern?

    Why should there always be a clear upward trend? Do people who beat it always beat it? I dont think that is the case, do you?

    Anyway, they dont give out data and that simple statement doesnt explain what they are looking at, but there are many ways to look at this and they are unlikely to react to anything other than a change outside of the norm.
  • GJO
    170 posts Member
    Is there any shards of KAM coming for the inconvenience of having to play 2 bugged GeoLSTB's in a row?

    Kind of, 30 shards per TB would be nice.
  • Kyno
    31476 posts Moderator
    GJO wrote: »
    Is there any shards of KAM coming for the inconvenience of having to play 2 bugged GeoLSTB's in a row?

    Kind of, 30 shards per TB would be nice.

    At the moment, no.
  • alratl
    1 posts Member
    Our guild actually has a decreased rate as do many others that have him unlocked. They no longer stream so rates have gone down as the importance went down. This may also negate some of the “increase”
  • GJO
    170 posts Member
    But keep in mind... it would be nice
    :)
    Kyno wrote: »
    GJO wrote: »
    Is there any shards of KAM coming for the inconvenience of having to play 2 bugged GeoLSTB's in a row?

    Kind of, 30 shards per TB would be nice.

    At the moment, no.

  • kello_511
    1554 posts Member
    alratl wrote: »
    Our guild actually has a decreased rate as do many others that have him unlocked. They no longer stream so rates have gone down as the importance went down. This may also negate some of the “increase”

    Same, our rate has dropped quite a bit, probably around 10 shards.
  • Kyno
    31476 posts Moderator
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Regardless of the numbers, it’s also a PR hit not to compensate the players for something out of their control. Throwing 15 or so shards of KAM to the players wouldn’t break the game and make the players happy…instead, we get this thread.

    This. Relying specifically on the shard numbers is fairly pointless as there are too many variables - the fact that KAM is now known NOT to be a requirement for JMK, guilds choosing to focus or not on him, guilds where many have recently 7* him, people not even bothering, because it's bugged (or changed or made more difficult, etc.)

    Anything less than compensation shards is simply more tone-deaf, corporate response and justification.

    May I ask how you would estimate shard compensation if the numbers are meaningless?
  • Nikoms565
    14242 posts Member
    edited July 8
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Regardless of the numbers, it’s also a PR hit not to compensate the players for something out of their control. Throwing 15 or so shards of KAM to the players wouldn’t break the game and make the players happy…instead, we get this thread.

    This. Relying specifically on the shard numbers is fairly pointless as there are too many variables - the fact that KAM is now known NOT to be a requirement for JMK, guilds choosing to focus or not on him, guilds where many have recently 7* him, people not even bothering, because it's bugged (or changed or made more difficult, etc.)

    Anything less than compensation shards is simply more tone-deaf, corporate response and justification.

    May I ask how you would estimate shard compensation if the numbers are meaningless?

    Go back to the numbers earned by the guild the TB prior to the bug. Allow for whatever accounts for "normal" increase from month to month, then compensate each guild based on the previous TB + that increase.

    Or simply give everyone 50 shards, since CG usually takes the easier path. At least that way no one can complain that their guild would have earned more.

    And just for the record, I never said the numbers were meaningless.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • TVF
    30976 posts Member
    Giving everyone 50 shards would test my newfound positive attitude.
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Nikoms565
    14242 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    Giving everyone 50 shards would test my newfound positive attitude.

    I thought you'd love the shard shop currency! :)
    In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • Nikoms565
    14242 posts Member
    CG could also simply have everyone earn 2 KAM shards per successful run instead of 1 for the next 2 LSTB (after the bug is fixed). That wouldn't make up for the lost time, but it would at least make up for lost shards due to the bug/change/whatever. It's not 100% compensation, but it's close.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • TVF
    30976 posts Member
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    Giving everyone 50 shards would test my newfound positive attitude.

    I thought you'd love the shard shop currency! :)

    Oh well if it's just 50 for me, I'm in. :blush:
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Ultra
    8434 posts Moderator
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    CG could also simply have everyone earn 2 KAM shards per successful run instead of 1 for the next 2 LSTB (after the bug is fixed). That wouldn't make up for the lost time, but it would at least make up for lost shards due to the bug/change/whatever. It's not 100% compensation, but it's close.

    If you want it to be fair,

    They could reward zero shards this run and 2x next run
  • TVF
    30976 posts Member
    Ultra wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    CG could also simply have everyone earn 2 KAM shards per successful run instead of 1 for the next 2 LSTB (after the bug is fixed). That wouldn't make up for the lost time, but it would at least make up for lost shards due to the bug/change/whatever. It's not 100% compensation, but it's close.

    If you want it to be fair,

    They could reward zero shards this run and 2x next run

    200.gif
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Kyno
    31476 posts Moderator
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Regardless of the numbers, it’s also a PR hit not to compensate the players for something out of their control. Throwing 15 or so shards of KAM to the players wouldn’t break the game and make the players happy…instead, we get this thread.

    This. Relying specifically on the shard numbers is fairly pointless as there are too many variables - the fact that KAM is now known NOT to be a requirement for JMK, guilds choosing to focus or not on him, guilds where many have recently 7* him, people not even bothering, because it's bugged (or changed or made more difficult, etc.)

    Anything less than compensation shards is simply more tone-deaf, corporate response and justification.

    May I ask how you would estimate shard compensation if the numbers are meaningless?

    Go back to the numbers earned by the guild the TB prior to the bug. Allow for whatever accounts for "normal" increase from month to month, then compensate each guild based on the previous TB + that increase.

    Or simply give everyone 50 shards, since CG usually takes the easier path. At least that way no one can complain that their guild would have earned more.

    And just for the record, I never said the numbers were meaningless.

    Sorry you said pointless.

    I guess I'm confused by this more than anything, so they can and should account for the numbers when offering compensation, but if those numbers prove there was little to 0 effect on those numbers, that is pointless.

    I was honestly asking, while trying to prod Doja about this topic, but now I'm thinking this is one of those "Whose line is it anyway?" type of things.

    We all know 50 is not a realistic number, if we can acknowledge what they said, not sure if we can.

    Generally speaking any compensation is viewed on the grand scale, as the more complicated the situation the greater risk of an error or at least an issue. Yes the easy path.


    If anything were to happen, that level of calculation and added work is not as likely to happen. Anything simpler and more realistic (i.e. not 50)?
  • Iy4oy4s
    2482 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Regardless of the numbers, it’s also a PR hit not to compensate the players for something out of their control. Throwing 15 or so shards of KAM to the players wouldn’t break the game and make the players happy…instead, we get this thread.

    This. Relying specifically on the shard numbers is fairly pointless as there are too many variables - the fact that KAM is now known NOT to be a requirement for JMK, guilds choosing to focus or not on him, guilds where many have recently 7* him, people not even bothering, because it's bugged (or changed or made more difficult, etc.)

    Anything less than compensation shards is simply more tone-deaf, corporate response and justification.

    May I ask how you would estimate shard compensation if the numbers are meaningless?

    Go back to the numbers earned by the guild the TB prior to the bug. Allow for whatever accounts for "normal" increase from month to month, then compensate each guild based on the previous TB + that increase.

    Or simply give everyone 50 shards, since CG usually takes the easier path. At least that way no one can complain that their guild would have earned more.

    And just for the record, I never said the numbers were meaningless.

    Sorry you said pointless.

    I guess I'm confused by this more than anything, so they can and should account for the numbers when offering compensation, but if those numbers prove there was little to 0 effect on those numbers, that is pointless.

    I was honestly asking, while trying to prod Doja about this topic, but now I'm thinking this is one of those "Whose line is it anyway?" type of things.

    We all know 50 is not a realistic number, if we can acknowledge what they said, not sure if we can.

    Generally speaking any compensation is viewed on the grand scale, as the more complicated the situation the greater risk of an error or at least an issue. Yes the easy path.


    If anything were to happen, that level of calculation and added work is not as likely to happen. Anything simpler and more realistic (i.e. not 50)?

    I would say to not even bother with all the math and give us 10 per messed up TW. So 20. I think that 20 shards is generous and would show that they are listening and care because it surely doesn’t seem like they do with the complete ignorance of the topic. 20 wouldn’t cost them anything and help us out…always look for a win win situation…boom, there it is.
  • Ultra
    8434 posts Moderator
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Regardless of the numbers, it’s also a PR hit not to compensate the players for something out of their control. Throwing 15 or so shards of KAM to the players wouldn’t break the game and make the players happy…instead, we get this thread.

    This. Relying specifically on the shard numbers is fairly pointless as there are too many variables - the fact that KAM is now known NOT to be a requirement for JMK, guilds choosing to focus or not on him, guilds where many have recently 7* him, people not even bothering, because it's bugged (or changed or made more difficult, etc.)

    Anything less than compensation shards is simply more tone-deaf, corporate response and justification.

    May I ask how you would estimate shard compensation if the numbers are meaningless?

    Go back to the numbers earned by the guild the TB prior to the bug. Allow for whatever accounts for "normal" increase from month to month, then compensate each guild based on the previous TB + that increase.

    Or simply give everyone 50 shards, since CG usually takes the easier path. At least that way no one can complain that their guild would have earned more.

    And just for the record, I never said the numbers were meaningless.

    Sorry you said pointless.

    I guess I'm confused by this more than anything, so they can and should account for the numbers when offering compensation, but if those numbers prove there was little to 0 effect on those numbers, that is pointless.

    I was honestly asking, while trying to prod Doja about this topic, but now I'm thinking this is one of those "Whose line is it anyway?" type of things.

    We all know 50 is not a realistic number, if we can acknowledge what they said, not sure if we can.

    Generally speaking any compensation is viewed on the grand scale, as the more complicated the situation the greater risk of an error or at least an issue. Yes the easy path.


    If anything were to happen, that level of calculation and added work is not as likely to happen. Anything simpler and more realistic (i.e. not 50)?

    I would say to not even bother with all the math and give us 10 per messed up TW. So 20. I think that 20 shards is generous and would show that they are listening and care because it surely doesn’t seem like they do with the complete ignorance of the topic. 20 wouldn’t cost them anything and help us out…always look for a win win situation…boom, there it is.

    lol
  • Iy4oy4s
    2482 posts Member
    Ultra wrote: »
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Regardless of the numbers, it’s also a PR hit not to compensate the players for something out of their control. Throwing 15 or so shards of KAM to the players wouldn’t break the game and make the players happy…instead, we get this thread.

    This. Relying specifically on the shard numbers is fairly pointless as there are too many variables - the fact that KAM is now known NOT to be a requirement for JMK, guilds choosing to focus or not on him, guilds where many have recently 7* him, people not even bothering, because it's bugged (or changed or made more difficult, etc.)

    Anything less than compensation shards is simply more tone-deaf, corporate response and justification.

    May I ask how you would estimate shard compensation if the numbers are meaningless?

    Go back to the numbers earned by the guild the TB prior to the bug. Allow for whatever accounts for "normal" increase from month to month, then compensate each guild based on the previous TB + that increase.

    Or simply give everyone 50 shards, since CG usually takes the easier path. At least that way no one can complain that their guild would have earned more.

    And just for the record, I never said the numbers were meaningless.

    Sorry you said pointless.

    I guess I'm confused by this more than anything, so they can and should account for the numbers when offering compensation, but if those numbers prove there was little to 0 effect on those numbers, that is pointless.

    I was honestly asking, while trying to prod Doja about this topic, but now I'm thinking this is one of those "Whose line is it anyway?" type of things.

    We all know 50 is not a realistic number, if we can acknowledge what they said, not sure if we can.

    Generally speaking any compensation is viewed on the grand scale, as the more complicated the situation the greater risk of an error or at least an issue. Yes the easy path.


    If anything were to happen, that level of calculation and added work is not as likely to happen. Anything simpler and more realistic (i.e. not 50)?

    I would say to not even bother with all the math and give us 10 per messed up TW. So 20. I think that 20 shards is generous and would show that they are listening and care because it surely doesn’t seem like they do with the complete ignorance of the topic. 20 wouldn’t cost them anything and help us out…always look for a win win situation…boom, there it is.

    lol

    Very helpful. Thank you for playing.
  • Ultra
    8434 posts Moderator
    edited July 8
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Ultra wrote: »
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Regardless of the numbers, it’s also a PR hit not to compensate the players for something out of their control. Throwing 15 or so shards of KAM to the players wouldn’t break the game and make the players happy…instead, we get this thread.

    This. Relying specifically on the shard numbers is fairly pointless as there are too many variables - the fact that KAM is now known NOT to be a requirement for JMK, guilds choosing to focus or not on him, guilds where many have recently 7* him, people not even bothering, because it's bugged (or changed or made more difficult, etc.)

    Anything less than compensation shards is simply more tone-deaf, corporate response and justification.

    May I ask how you would estimate shard compensation if the numbers are meaningless?

    Go back to the numbers earned by the guild the TB prior to the bug. Allow for whatever accounts for "normal" increase from month to month, then compensate each guild based on the previous TB + that increase.

    Or simply give everyone 50 shards, since CG usually takes the easier path. At least that way no one can complain that their guild would have earned more.

    And just for the record, I never said the numbers were meaningless.

    Sorry you said pointless.

    I guess I'm confused by this more than anything, so they can and should account for the numbers when offering compensation, but if those numbers prove there was little to 0 effect on those numbers, that is pointless.

    I was honestly asking, while trying to prod Doja about this topic, but now I'm thinking this is one of those "Whose line is it anyway?" type of things.

    We all know 50 is not a realistic number, if we can acknowledge what they said, not sure if we can.

    Generally speaking any compensation is viewed on the grand scale, as the more complicated the situation the greater risk of an error or at least an issue. Yes the easy path.


    If anything were to happen, that level of calculation and added work is not as likely to happen. Anything simpler and more realistic (i.e. not 50)?

    I would say to not even bother with all the math and give us 10 per messed up TW. So 20. I think that 20 shards is generous and would show that they are listening and care because it surely doesn’t seem like they do with the complete ignorance of the topic. 20 wouldn’t cost them anything and help us out…always look for a win win situation…boom, there it is.

    lol

    Very helpful. Thank you for playing.

    Why 10?

    Its a very arbitrary number you pulled out of the hat

    Is 10 shards for this upcoming Territory Battle fair? Is it unfair?

    Why not 5 shards? Or 25?

    Why 10?

    How do you determine that?

    Answer: data

    Kyno has mentioned earlier ITT that CG looked at the data the last time it ran and saw no difference in win rate before SYG was bugged

    They will be closely monitoring the success rate this run and if there is a significant change they might offer compensation or they might not and we all would have a valid reason to raise our pitchforks

    If the guilds are still winning at the same rate, they won't and to be fair, why should they? If you got 25 last month and 24 this month, its more or less the same thing

    Does everyone deserve 10 shards or 20 for getting the same number of KAM they were getting last month when it wasn't bugged (except for the last few hours of Phase 4)?

    So how about we wait and see if compensation is needed or not?

    Looking at this situation objectively, it seems like a wait and see situation
  • Konju
    1110 posts Member
    CG has become DP Oil from South Park…keep messing up and offering a “we’re sorry” response (obvious hyperbole as these mistakes will not summon Chthulu). I’m not asking for the world, but some compensation does seem to be in order for this bug imo. 10-15 shards doesn’t break the game, offers reasonable compensation, and instills good will among the players that when something does go wrong with the game the players aren’t simply short-changed.
  • Kyno
    31476 posts Moderator
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Iy4oy4s wrote: »
    Regardless of the numbers, it’s also a PR hit not to compensate the players for something out of their control. Throwing 15 or so shards of KAM to the players wouldn’t break the game and make the players happy…instead, we get this thread.

    This. Relying specifically on the shard numbers is fairly pointless as there are too many variables - the fact that KAM is now known NOT to be a requirement for JMK, guilds choosing to focus or not on him, guilds where many have recently 7* him, people not even bothering, because it's bugged (or changed or made more difficult, etc.)

    Anything less than compensation shards is simply more tone-deaf, corporate response and justification.

    May I ask how you would estimate shard compensation if the numbers are meaningless?

    Go back to the numbers earned by the guild the TB prior to the bug. Allow for whatever accounts for "normal" increase from month to month, then compensate each guild based on the previous TB + that increase.

    Or simply give everyone 50 shards, since CG usually takes the easier path. At least that way no one can complain that their guild would have earned more.

    And just for the record, I never said the numbers were meaningless.

    Sorry you said pointless.

    I guess I'm confused by this more than anything, so they can and should account for the numbers when offering compensation, but if those numbers prove there was little to 0 effect on those numbers, that is pointless.

    I was honestly asking, while trying to prod Doja about this topic, but now I'm thinking this is one of those "Whose line is it anyway?" type of things.

    We all know 50 is not a realistic number, if we can acknowledge what they said, not sure if we can.

    Generally speaking any compensation is viewed on the grand scale, as the more complicated the situation the greater risk of an error or at least an issue. Yes the easy path.


    If anything were to happen, that level of calculation and added work is not as likely to happen. Anything simpler and more realistic (i.e. not 50)?

    I would say to not even bother with all the math and give us 10 per messed up TW. So 20. I think that 20 shards is generous and would show that they are listening and care because it surely doesn’t seem like they do with the complete ignorance of the topic. 20 wouldn’t cost them anything and help us out…always look for a win win situation…boom, there it is.

    10 may be a little high, but yes that was the type of solution I was expecting.

    "Making players whole" and move on.

    Anyway, this is all just in theory, and ideas for Doja. We will have to wait and see how it plays out, but with data on one side, unfortunately I see it not going the way we want.
Sign In or Register to comment.